New education standards factor in student race, economic status

Plan 2020 strives to use where students are now as starting point

First-graders take part in a lesson at Myrtlewood Elementary School in Fosters in November 2011. Starting this fall, Alabama students will have to meet a new set of math and reading goals as a part of Plan 2020, an academic accountability system created by the state. The goals will be based on students' race, economic status, ability to speak English and disabilities.

Staff file photo | Dusty Compton

By Jamon SmithStaff Writer

Published: Sunday, June 30, 2013 at 3:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 10:58 p.m.

Beginning this fall, Alabama public schools will be under a new state-created academic accountability system that sets different goals for students in math and reading based on their race, economic status, ability to speak English and disabilities.

The state's new Plan 2020 will replace No Child Left Behind, the much-maligned, Bush-era accountability program. Plan 2020 emphasizes getting students college- or career-ready and closing the achievement gap that exists between impoverished minority students and students who are better off socioeconomically.

It sets a different standard for students in each of several subgroups — American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, black, English language learners, Hispanic, multirace, poverty, special education and white.

No Child Left Behind divided students into subgroups as well, but it didn't set different goals for students by subgroup.

For example, under No Child Left Behind, 95 percent of all third-graders had to pass math by 2013 for a school to meet education standards. All third-graders, black, white, poor, special needs or otherwise, had to meet the same goal.

But under Plan 2020, the percentage of third-graders required to pass math in 2013 is different for each subgroup.

The percentages needed for third-graders to pass math in their subgroups for 2013 are:

- 93.6 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students.

- 91.5 percent of white students.

- 90.3 percent of American Indian students.

- 89.4 percent of multiracial students.

- 85.5 percent of Hispanic students.

- 82.6 percent of students in poverty.

- 79.6 percent of English language-learner students.

- 79 percent of black students.

- 61.7 percent of special needs students.

Some parents and community activists say Plan 2020's “race-based” standards unfairly set low expectations for black, Hispanic, English language-learner, impoverished and special needs students.

“I think having a low bar means they can just pass them on,” said Tim Robinson, the father of two black children who attend Alberta Elementary and Englewood Elementary. “I think it's dumbing our race down and preparing our boys for prison.

“The teachers aren't even going to teach all of them anymore. Not the black boys and girls. And if we sit by and let this happen, it's on us.”

Andrea Alston, the mother of a black student with special needs who's transferring from Central High School to Pleasant Grove High School, said she knew about Plan 2020 but had heard nothing about the plan's accountability standards by subgroup. She said school systems should have notified parents of the change.

“If this was of value and interest to the parents, why didn't local school boards tell this to the parents?” she said. “Plan 2020 says it's going to close the achievement gap and every student is going to graduate, but how is this going to benefit that?”

Nirmala Erevelles, the mother of a Woodland Forrest Elementary student who is of mixed race, said she doesn't think the new accountability system is fair.

“I'm not sure what's the science behind this,” she said. “The science of knowing that only a certain percentage of black kids or other kids are going to pass this. Evaluation measures should be individualized to kids' needs, strengths and weaknesses. Standardized tests don't do that, and using another type of standardized test won't necessarily take care of kids' needs.”

John Gordon, an education advocate and former Tuscaloosa City Board of Education member from 1992-2001, said the goal for each student subgroup needs to be the same. He said setting lower expectations for some is only going to produce the same kinds of failures public education has been experiencing.

“Having high expectations for some and lower expectations for others is unacceptable,” he said. “All children can learn; they just learn at different rates depending on their background. Set the same goals for everyone, because if you don't, teachers will go into the classrooms with a preconceived notion and a self-fulfilling prophecy that these black kids aren't going to learn and these white kids are going to learn.”

In math, reading and graduation rates — the categories Plan 2020 examines — students who are special needs, in poverty, Hispanic, black and English language-learners have the lowest starting achievement goals of all subgroups in every grade.

But Plan 2020 also requires that the percentage of students in those subgroups increase the most by 2018.

Black third-graders are expected to go from 79 percent passing in math in 2013 to 88.5 percent in 2018, while whites are expected to go from 91.5 percent in 2013 to 95.4 percent in 2018.

Shanthia Washington, education administrator for the Alabama Department of Education, said the reason they set lower goals for some student subgroups is because they weren't performing as well as others based on 2012's standardized test data.

She said one of the goals of Plan 2020 is to start students off at the level they're performing on and set annual goals to get them to improve from there.

“We're not just grabbing the numbers out of the air ...,” Washington said. “This is real-life, true data. These are your goals every year. The goal is to reduce the students who aren't proficient over the period of the next six years.

“The purpose in (setting higher annual percentage increases for the lower performing subgroups) is to try to give ambitious but obtainable goals for each subgroup,” she said. “With the old system, they all had to adhere to the same goal, but some might have only had 20 percent proficiency.”

After the 2013-2014 school year, Washington said the accountability aspect of Plan 2020 will change somewhat. Instead of going by state goals for each subgroup, school systems will be allowed to use the test data from their own students to set their goals.

“There is not a one-size-fits-all for every district,” she said. “In other words, each district is different, and we have to recognize that each district has its own strengths and weaknesses, and this is a way we're catering to their specific needs.

“In that way, we feel like we can raise the performance. The ultimate goal of Plan 2020 is to ensure that each child is

college- and career-ready.”

Paul McKendrick, superintendent of the Tuscaloosa City School System, said he's not sure if Plan 2020's new accountability system is better than the one No Child Left Behind used but that he's going to support it because he has faith in Alabama Superintendent of Education Tommy Bice.

“They've researched it,” McKendrick said. “It's fair because in the ideal world it shows what we want our children to be doing, which are those end goals. It's fair because it's helping every child to achieve, instead of pockets of them. This is trying to shrink the (achievement) gap, but you don't do that just by going from 79 to 90 percent. You do it by going to 85 percent, 87 percent and then 90 percent.

“We'll use those (objectives), but that's the minimum, and the whole idea is to shoot beyond that.”

Gwendolyn Ferreti, co-founder of Somos Tuskaloosa, a grass-roots organization that advocates for Hispanics and immigrants, said having differentiated standards will work only if a disproportionate amount of education funding is given to schools that have a majority of the students in the lower achievement subgroups.

“Overall, it has a bad feeling, having people separated in that way,” she said. “But if there's more resources for students in the categories that need the most help, I say it can work. But otherwise, it's just having lower expectations for some people.”

Washington said there's no immediate plans to provide additional funding to schools that have a lot of students in the lower achieving groups.

Peter Hlebowitsh, dean of the College of Education at the University of Alabama, said he believes Plan 2020 has good intentions.

“The idea is to chase after equity and close the achievement gap,” he said. “And who could be against the idea of more kids graduating? But underscoring this is the question of why are expectations lower for some groups than others?

“I think this is purely psychometric. ... While the number is lower for the African-American group, the percentage increase is higher. The African-American score is lower because it's disproportionately associated with lower income kids. I think what they're thinking is it would only be fair to expect a little bit less from them than others.

“Percentage-wise, if you go from 82 to 91, which is what the expectation is in third-grade reading for black students, that's a big increase. So in a way, you could argue that the expectation for the black population is higher than the whites because they expect them to increase more. It's just harder for poorer kids to do better in school.”

<p>Beginning this fall, Alabama public schools will be under a new state-created academic accountability system that sets different goals for students in math and reading based on their race, economic status, ability to speak English and disabilities.</p><p>The state's new Plan 2020 will replace No Child Left Behind, the much-maligned, Bush-era accountability program. Plan 2020 emphasizes getting students college- or career-ready and closing the achievement gap that exists between impoverished minority students and students who are better off socioeconomically.</p><p>It sets a different standard for students in each of several subgroups — American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, black, English language learners, Hispanic, multirace, poverty, special education and white.</p><p>No Child Left Behind divided students into subgroups as well, but it didn't set different goals for students by subgroup.</p><p>For example, under No Child Left Behind, 95 percent of all third-graders had to pass math by 2013 for a school to meet education standards. All third-graders, black, white, poor, special needs or otherwise, had to meet the same goal.</p><p>But under Plan 2020, the percentage of third-graders required to pass math in 2013 is different for each subgroup.</p><p>The percentages needed for third-graders to pass math in their subgroups for 2013 are:</p><p><b>-</b> 93.6 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students.</p><p><b>-</b> 91.5 percent of white students.</p><p><b>-</b> 90.3 percent of American Indian students.</p><p><b>-</b> 89.4 percent of multiracial students.</p><p><b>-</b> 85.5 percent of Hispanic students.</p><p><b>-</b> 82.6 percent of students in poverty.</p><p><b>-</b> 79.6 percent of English language-learner students.</p><p><b>-</b> 79 percent of black students.</p><p><b>-</b> 61.7 percent of special needs students.</p><p>Some parents and community activists say Plan 2020's “race-based” standards unfairly set low expectations for black, Hispanic, English language-learner, impoverished and special needs students.</p><p>“I think having a low bar means they can just pass them on,” said Tim Robinson, the father of two black children who attend Alberta Elementary and Englewood Elementary. “I think it's dumbing our race down and preparing our boys for prison.</p><p>“The teachers aren't even going to teach all of them anymore. Not the black boys and girls. And if we sit by and let this happen, it's on us.”</p><p>Andrea Alston, the mother of a black student with special needs who's transferring from Central High School to Pleasant Grove High School, said she knew about Plan 2020 but had heard nothing about the plan's accountability standards by subgroup. She said school systems should have notified parents of the change.</p><p>“If this was of value and interest to the parents, why didn't local school boards tell this to the parents?” she said. “Plan 2020 says it's going to close the achievement gap and every student is going to graduate, but how is this going to benefit that?”</p><p>Nirmala Erevelles, the mother of a Woodland Forrest Elementary student who is of mixed race, said she doesn't think the new accountability system is fair.</p><p>“I'm not sure what's the science behind this,” she said. “The science of knowing that only a certain percentage of black kids or other kids are going to pass this. Evaluation measures should be individualized to kids' needs, strengths and weaknesses. Standardized tests don't do that, and using another type of standardized test won't necessarily take care of kids' needs.”</p><p>John Gordon, an education advocate and former Tuscaloosa City Board of Education member from 1992-2001, said the goal for each student subgroup needs to be the same. He said setting lower expectations for some is only going to produce the same kinds of failures public education has been experiencing.</p><p>“Having high expectations for some and lower expectations for others is unacceptable,” he said. “All children can learn; they just learn at different rates depending on their background. Set the same goals for everyone, because if you don't, teachers will go into the classrooms with a preconceived notion and a self-fulfilling prophecy that these black kids aren't going to learn and these white kids are going to learn.”</p><p>In math, reading and graduation rates — the categories Plan 2020 examines — students who are special needs, in poverty, Hispanic, black and English language-learners have the lowest starting achievement goals of all subgroups in every grade.</p><p>But Plan 2020 also requires that the percentage of students in those subgroups increase the most by 2018.</p><p>Black third-graders are expected to go from 79 percent passing in math in 2013 to 88.5 percent in 2018, while whites are expected to go from 91.5 percent in 2013 to 95.4 percent in 2018.</p><p>Shanthia Washington, education administrator for the Alabama Department of Education, said the reason they set lower goals for some student subgroups is because they weren't performing as well as others based on 2012's standardized test data.</p><p>She said one of the goals of Plan 2020 is to start students off at the level they're performing on and set annual goals to get them to improve from there.</p><p>“We're not just grabbing the numbers out of the air ...,” Washington said. “This is real-life, true data. These are your goals every year. The goal is to reduce the students who aren't proficient over the period of the next six years.</p><p>“The purpose in (setting higher annual percentage increases for the lower performing subgroups) is to try to give ambitious but obtainable goals for each subgroup,” she said. “With the old system, they all had to adhere to the same goal, but some might have only had 20 percent proficiency.”</p><p>After the 2013-2014 school year, Washington said the accountability aspect of Plan 2020 will change somewhat. Instead of going by state goals for each subgroup, school systems will be allowed to use the test data from their own students to set their goals. </p><p>“There is not a one-size-fits-all for every district,” she said. “In other words, each district is different, and we have to recognize that each district has its own strengths and weaknesses, and this is a way we're catering to their specific needs.</p><p>“In that way, we feel like we can raise the performance. The ultimate goal of Plan 2020 is to ensure that each child is </p><p>college- and career-ready.”</p><p>Paul McKendrick, superintendent of the Tuscaloosa City School System, said he's not sure if Plan 2020's new accountability system is better than the one No Child Left Behind used but that he's going to support it because he has faith in Alabama Superintendent of Education Tommy Bice.</p><p>“They've researched it,” McKendrick said. “It's fair because in the ideal world it shows what we want our children to be doing, which are those end goals. It's fair because it's helping every child to achieve, instead of pockets of them. This is trying to shrink the (achievement) gap, but you don't do that just by going from 79 to 90 percent. You do it by going to 85 percent, 87 percent and then 90 percent.</p><p>“We'll use those (objectives), but that's the minimum, and the whole idea is to shoot beyond that.”</p><p>Gwendolyn Ferreti, co-founder of Somos Tuskaloosa, a grass-roots organization that advocates for Hispanics and immigrants, said having differentiated standards will work only if a disproportionate amount of education funding is given to schools that have a majority of the students in the lower achievement subgroups.</p><p>“Overall, it has a bad feeling, having people separated in that way,” she said. “But if there's more resources for students in the categories that need the most help, I say it can work. But otherwise, it's just having lower expectations for some people.”</p><p>Washington said there's no immediate plans to provide additional funding to schools that have a lot of students in the lower achieving groups.</p><p>Peter Hlebowitsh, dean of the College of Education at the University of Alabama, said he believes Plan 2020 has good intentions.</p><p>“The idea is to chase after equity and close the achievement gap,” he said. “And who could be against the idea of more kids graduating? But underscoring this is the question of why are expectations lower for some groups than others?</p><p>“I think this is purely psychometric. ... While the number is lower for the African-American group, the percentage increase is higher. The African-American score is lower because it's disproportionately associated with lower income kids. I think what they're thinking is it would only be fair to expect a little bit less from them than others.</p><p>“Percentage-wise, if you go from 82 to 91, which is what the expectation is in third-grade reading for black students, that's a big increase. So in a way, you could argue that the expectation for the black population is higher than the whites because they expect them to increase more. It's just harder for poorer kids to do better in school.”</p><p>Reach Jamon Smith at jamon.smith@tuscaloosanews.com or 205-722-0204.</p>